Delhi District Court
State vs Manjeet @ Jeeta (2) on 19 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS SAUMYA CHAUHAN,
ASJ (FTC)-02, WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT01-007267-2016
SC 58098/2016
STATE Vs. MANJEET @ JEETA (2)
FIR No. 199/2016
PS Mundka
Under Section: 392/397/411/482/34 IPC
Date of commission of offence 19.04.2016
Date of Committal in the Court of 17.09.2016
Sessions
Name of the complainant Parveen
Name of accused persons and 1. Manjeet @ Jeeta S/o
address Naresh Kumar, R/o
H.No.4943, Sec.11, Urban
State Jind , Haryana.
2. Vishal S/o Sh. Subash,
R/o 4948, Sec.11, Urban
State, Jind Haryana.
Offence complained of or proved 392/397/411/482/34 IPC
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Final Order Acquitted
Date of judgment 19.07.2025
SC no.58098/16 FIR No.199/16 State Vs. Manjeet @ Jeeta & Ors. Page 1 of 23
JUDGMENT
1. The accused persons are facing trial for offence under
Section 392/397/411/482/34 IPC on basis of the charge-sheet
filed against them in the present FIR for committing robbery of
three mobile phones, Verna Car and cash of Rs.1 Lakh from the
possession of the complainant Praveen and his friend Gautam at
gunpoint.
PROSECUTION STORY
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 19.04.2016
one DD entry no.29A was received by HC Durga Prasad at PS
Mundka. He alongwith Ct. Dilip reached the spot i.e.
Bakkarwala Gaon, Gaushala Road, Delhi, where they met the
complainant Praveen and his friend Gautam. They told the police
officials that they had come to Delhi in Honda Verna car of the
complainant having registration no.HR-33D-7065 for some
work. However, on their way back, one of their known persons
namely Vishal and his associate (name unknown) also sat in the
car and robbed them on gunpoint. They robbed an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- from the possession of Gautam and also took away
their mobile phones. They forced them to alight from the Verna
Car and escaped in complainant’s Verna car.
3. On basis of the statement of the complainant Praveen, the
present FIR was registered under Section 392/397/34 IPC.
During investigation, accused persons were arrested in two
separate cases by police officials of PS Jind, Haryana. One
Samsung mobile phone belonging to the complainant was
SC no.58098/16 FIR No.199/16 State Vs. Manjeet @ Jeeta & Ors. Page 2 of 23
recovered at the instance of accused Vishal from his house. The
Honda Verna car was recovered from the possession of accused
Manjeet having the fake number plate DL-12CA-0081. The
accused persons were arrested and their disclosure statement was
recorded. Section 482 and 411 IPC were added to the present
FIR. Both the accused refused to participate in the Test
Identification Parade (TIP in short).
4. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under
Section 392/397/411/482/34 IPC was filed in the Court of Ld.
MM against the accused persons. After completion of
proceedings under Section 207 Cr.P.C., Ld. MM committed the
case to the Sessions Court.
FRAMING OF CHARGE
5. Vide order dated 02.04.2018 charge under Section 392/34
IPC was framed against both the accused persons. Separate
charge under Section 397/411/482 IPC was framed against
accused Manjeet @ Jeeta, while charge under Section 411 IPC
was framed against accused Vishal. The accused persons
pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
6. To prove the charge against the accused persons, the
prosecution has examined 15 witnesses in total.
7. The complainant Praveen was examined as PW-1.
However, his cross examination could not be concluded as he
became untraceable and vide order dated 02.12.2023 his name
SC no.58098/16 FIR No.199/16 State Vs. Manjeet @ Jeeta & Ors. Page 3 of 23
was dropped from the list of witnesses. As such, his
examination-in-chief cannot be read in evidence. Even
otherwise, he had failed to support the prosecution story in his
testimony before the court.
8. PW2/Sh. Gautam Kumar deposed that he had to borrow
Rs. 1 lac from one of his friends at Chandini Chowk, Delhi on
19/04/2016. He alongwith his friend Praveen (complainant)
started for Delhi from Rohtak in Praveen’s Verna car bearing
registration no. HR-33D-7065 as Praveen had to get shockers of
his car repaired. The witness got down from the car at Nangloi
Metro Station and went to Chandni Chowk. After completing his
work at Chandni Chowk, he reached Inderlok at about 7.30 pm.
There he met with Parveen, accused Vishal and one other person
in the Verna car. He deposed that accused Vishal was previously
known to him. Vishal told them that he had to meet someone in
relation to his business and all of them proceeded towards
Mundka. Before reaching Mundka, they reached Gaushala Road,
Bakkarwala through internal roads of colonies and Vishal
stopped the car on a secluded road. He told them that someone
will come to meet him there only. He asked them to ease off and
the witness alongwith Vishal and Parveen alighted from the car
while the fourth person remained seated in the car. After easing
themselves, Vishal and Praveen sat in the car. He had cash
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in his pants’ pocket. Thereafter, Vishal
put a gun on his stomach and threatened him to handover cash
amount to him. Due to fear, he handed over cash amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- and his mobile phone make Samsung to co-
accused Vishal. Thereafter, the accused persons forced him and
SC no.58098/16 FIR No.199/16 State Vs. Manjeet @ Jeeta & Ors. Page 4 of 23
Praveen to alight from the said car and ran away with the
vehicle. The witness took mobile phone from a passerby and
called the police. Police reached there and they were taken to PS
Mundka. Thereafter, police recorded their statements.
9. PW-2 further deposed that he was taken to Kaithal
(Haryana) by the police. Police showed him 2-3 persons. He
only recognized accused Vishal as he was already known to him
but was unable to recognize other persons as they were not
known to him. He did not know whether police recovered any
cash amount or mobile phone. He identified his mobile phone as
Ex.P1. He deposed that he had handed over the bill of his mobile
phone to the police.
10. PW-2 duly identified accused Vishal but failed to identify
the accused Manjeet. Hence, he was cross examined by Ld.
Chief Prosecutor for the State. He denied having identified the
accused Manjeet in Tis Hazari Courts on 20.06.2016. He denied
having made the statement Mark PW2/A. He failed to identify
the accused Manjeet @ Jeeta, despite pointing out by Ld.
Prosecutor.
11. In cross-examination on behalf of accused, PW-2 admitted
that it was raining and it was night time at the time of incident,
and there was no source of light at the spot. He admitted that he
is not the owner of the Verna car. He further stated the he did not
know the name of the person who had put gun on his stomach.
He admitted that the person namely Vishal, whom he had
SC no.58098/16 FIR No.199/16 State Vs. Manjeet @ Jeeta & Ors. Page 5 of 23
deposed about in his examination in chief was not present in the
court.
12. PW-2 was re-examined by Ld. APP for state with respect
to identity of accused Vishal. He denied the suggestion that he
knew accused Vishal prior to the incident. He admitted that IO
ASI Phool Kumar had recorded his statement on the next day of
incident i.e. on 20.04.2016. He voluntarily stated that he had met
with an accident in the year 2017 and received head injury due to
which he tends to forget things. That is why he did not
remember if he stated in his statement in the court dated
14.10.2019 that Vishal was previously known to him. He failed
to identify the accused Vishal despite being pointed out by Addl.
PP, saying that the incident had taken place at night.
13. PW-3/HC Bhim Singh and PW-12/ASI Durga Prasad had
reached the spot on receiving DD no. 29A on 19.04.2016. The
complainant Praveen met them and PW-12/ASI Durga Prashad
recorded his statement. PW-12 prepared rukka and handed it over
to PW-3, who went to PS Mundka and got the FIR No. 199/2016
registered through Duty officer. Copy of FIR and original rukka
were handed over to the next IO ASI Phool Kumar. IO prepared
rough site plan of the place of occurrence at the instance of
complainant and also recorded the supplementary statement of
Sh. Gautam and Praveen.
14. PW-4/Retired ASI Phool Kumar deposed that he prepared
rough site plan Ex.PW4/A at the instance of complainant and
SC no.58098/16 FIR No.199/16 State Vs. Manjeet @ Jeeta & Ors. Page 6 of 23
recorded the supplementary statement of Gautam, Praveen and
HC Durga Prasad. He further deposed that on 06.06.2016, he
interrogated and arrested co-accused Manjeet @ Jeeta. On
24.05.2016 vide DD no. 59B, he went to Jind, Haryana and
collected copy of FIR no. 385/2016 u/s 25 Arms Act, PS City
Jind from ASI Rajbir. He moved an application for production
warrant of accused Vishal. On 03.06.2016, accused Vishal were
interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/B. PW-4
recorded his disclosure statement, Ex.PW4/C. Thereafter, he
obtained three days PC remand of accused Vishal, during which
he got recovered one mobile phone make Samsung 4G Duos
Black colour from his house bearing no. 4984, Sector-11, Jind,
Haryana. PW-4 seized the said mobile phone in the presence of
complainant Praveen vide memo Ex.PW1/B. He also seized the
receipt/bill of said mobile phone produced by the complainant,
vide memo Ex.PW4/D. Vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/G, the
robbed car along with fake number plate DL-12CA-0081 was
deposited in Malkhana of PS Mundka vide order of Ld. ACJM
Jind through PW-11/ SI Rakesh Kumar. The 04 photographs of
the said car are Ex.PW11/Article-1 (colly). After completing the
investigation, he filed the charge-sheet. He identified the mobile
phone recovered at the instance of accused Vishal, make
Samsung 4-G Duos black colour as Ex.P-1. The accused persons
submitted that they are not disputing the identity of the Verna Car
and the number plate, however, they dispute the factum of
recovery of the said car having fake number plate from their
possession.
SC no.58098/16 FIR No.199/16 State Vs. Manjeet @ Jeeta & Ors. Page 7 of 23
15. During cross-examination, PW-4 stated that the mother of
accused Vishal was present at the time of recovery of Samsung
mobile. He admitted that the seizure memo of said mobile does
not bear the signatures of mother of accused Vishal. He further
denied that the house of accused Vishal is surrounded by other
houses. He admitted that public persons were available near the
said house. However, he did not request the nearby residents for
joining the investigation. He denied that he had not prepared any
rough site plan of the place of recovery of the said mobile. No
videography or photography of the recovery proceedings of the
mobile phone was done by them. He admitted that he had also
not mentioned the mobile number and IMEI number in the
relevant seizure memo.
16. PW-9 Ct. Jai Dev has corroborated the testimony of PW-4
and have deposed regarding interrogation, arrest and recording of
disclosure statement of accused Vishal. PW-5 Ashok Kumar
corroborated the testimony of PW-4/ASI Phool Kumar as he had
joined the investigation with PW-4 qua the proceedings against
accused Manjeet. He had signed the arrest memo and disclosure
statement of accused Manjeet.
17. PW-6 ASI Rajender Singh had recorded the information
received from PCR mentioning the incident of robbery and
vehicle of the caller vide DD no.29A (Ex.PW6/A OSR). The
robbed amount was around Rs.1,00,000/- and vehicle number
was HR- 33D-7065. The said call was marked to HC Durga
Prasad for investigation. He further deposed that on 20.04.2016,
SC no.58098/16 FIR No.199/16 State Vs. Manjeet @ Jeeta & Ors. Page 8 of 23
he recorded the present FIR on basis of rukka brought by Ct.
Bheem Singh. His endorsement on the said Rukka is Ex.PW6/B,
computerized copy of FIR is Ex.PW6/C and certificate under
Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW6/D.
18. PW-7 ASI Rajesh deposed that on 06.06.2016, he
alongwith Ct. Ashok joined investigation with IO/ASI Phool
Kumar. They accompanied the IO to Tis Hazari Courts where
accused Manjeet was produced by Haryana Police before Ld.
MM. ASI Phool Kumar interrogated the accused after moving
appropriate application before the court. Accused Manjeet was
arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded. IO also
moved an application for conducting TIP of accused Manjeet but
he refused to participate in the TIP proceedings.
19. PW-8/ASI Rajbir Singh PS Jind deposed that on
24.05.2016, he arrested the accused Vishal in FIR No.385/16 PS
Jind, under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act. During interrogation,
Vishal disclosed that the firearm which was recovered from his
possession was given to him by his friend Manjeet @ Jeeta for
safe keeping. On the said information, accused Manjeet @ Jeeta
who was already lodged in Tihar Jail Delhi was taken on
production warrant and joined in the investigation by him. He
had supplied the copy of disclosure statement of accused Vishal
in FIR no.385/16 to the IO in this case and also informed him
about the fact narrated by accused Manjeet @ Jeeta.
20. PW-10 ASI Anil Kumar deposed that on 24.05.2016 he
SC no.58098/16 FIR No.199/16 State Vs. Manjeet @ Jeeta & Ors. Page 9 of 23
along with EASI Nizamuddin, Ct. Naresh, driver Ram Gopal and
ASI Surender (IO) were on patrolling duty. At about 5.30 p.m.,
they were at T-point Rohtak Jind bypass road. The police team
noticed a boy coming from the side of city on foot and on seeing
the police team he tried to escape towards the direction from
which he was coming. On suspicious ground he was chased by
police team and apprehended. On enquiry his name was revealed
as Vishal S/o Subhash. On search of accused Vishal, he was
found in possession of a country made pistol of .315 bore. ASI
Surender prepared sketch of the weapon and seized the same
after sealing it in a pullanda. IO prepared a rukka and got the FIR
registered through HC Naresh. ASI Rajbir came to the spot to
conduct further investigation in the present case.
21. During cross-examination, PW-10 admitted that the
accused persons have been acquitted in the case at Haryana.
22. PW-11 SI Rakesh Kumar deposed that on 04.08.2016 he
got transferred the Verna car from PS Sadar Thana, District Jind
to PS Mundka after obtaining court’s order. The car was
deposited in the Malkhana, PS Mundka. The said vehicle had a
fake number plate when verified by the IO.
23. PW-13 ASI Azad Singh, MHC(M) deposed that on
04.06.2016, ASI Phool Kumar deposited one mobile phone make
Samsung in the Malkhana vide entry at serial no.987 in register
no.19, which is Ex.PW13/A (OSR). On 04.08.2016, ASI Phool
Kumar deposited two number plates bearing registration no.HR
33D 7065 Verna Hyundai of white colour car and one fake
SC no.58098/16 FIR No.199/16 State Vs. Manjeet @ Jeeta & Ors. Page 10 of 23
number plate bearing no.DL 12CA 0081 in the Malkhana vide
entry no.1061 in register no. 19, which is Ex.PW13/B (OSR). On
the same day, SI Rakesh Kumar deposited one Hyundai Verna car
of white colour in the Malkhana vide entry no.1060 in register
no.19, which is Ex.PW13/C (OSR).
24. PW-14/C-1 Mazid Ahlawat, PS Sadar, Jind, Haryana
proved the entry no. 690 dated 19.05.2016 in register no.19 vide
which, case property was deposited in Malkhana in FIR no.
160/2016, which is Ex.PW14/A (OSR). On 04.08.2016 the Verna
car bearing registration on DL-12CA-0081 was handed over to SI
Rakesh of PS Mundka vide DD no.24. The copy of order of Ld.
ACJM, Jind dated 04.08.2016 vide which transfer application
with respect to the car was allowed is Ex.PW14/B (OSR).
25. PW-15 ASI Randhir Singh, IO in FIR no.160/2016 PS
Jind, deposed that on 19.05.2016, he received investigation of the
above said case. He received the copy of FIR recorded at the
instance of ASI Bijender Singh and reached the spot. There he
met ASI Bijender Singh, who produced the accused Manjeet and
two other persons alongwith sealed parcels containing seized
weapons. One Verna car having number plate DL-12CA-0081
and one Maruti Swift Dzire having number plate DL-12CH-0722
were also seized by ASI Bijender Singh. He recorded the
disclosure statement of accused Manjeet and seized the Verna
Car. Information regarding the same was given by him to the
senior officers. Copy of FIR no. 160/2016 is Mark PW15/A,
seizure memo regarding seizure of the car u/s 102 Cr.P.C. is
SC no.58098/16 FIR No.199/16 State Vs. Manjeet @ Jeeta & Ors. Page 11 of 23
Mark PW15/B, disclosure statement of accused Manjeet is
Ex.PW15/C and copy of statements of Ct. Pawan Kumar and HC
Abhay Kumar u/s 161 Cr.P.C. are Ex.PW15/D and Ex.PW15/E
respectively. He identified the Verna car as PW-11/Article-1.
26. Vide separate statement of their counsel under Section 294
Cr.P.C, the accused persons admitted the factum of recording of
TIP proceedings conducted by Ld. MM, West.
27. After conclusion of Prosecution Evidence, statement of
accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The
accused persons denied the entire prosecution evidence and
stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case.
They stated that the police officials have falsely implicated them
in various matters.
28. The accused persons did not lead any defence evidence
despite opportunity and case was listed for final arguments.
Detailed oral submissions have been made by Learned APP for
State as well as by Learned defence counsel.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
29. Ld. Counsels for accused persons have submitted that the
accused have been falsely implicated in the present case. It has
been submitted that PW-2/Gautam has turned completely hostile
during his cross examination and has denied that the accused
Vishal was previously known to him or that the accused Vishal
was present at the spot. Further, the prosecution has failed to
prove that the mobile phone allegedly recovered from the
SC no.58098/16 FIR No.199/16 State Vs. Manjeet @ Jeeta & Ors. Page 12 of 23
possession of accused Vishal belongs to PW-2/Gautam. No
independent witness was made to join the recovery proceedings.
It has been alleged that the mobile phone Ex.P-1 is planted on
the accused Vishal.
30. Ld. Counsel for accused Manjeet has also submitted that
the accused is entitled to be acquitted as PW-2 has failed to
identify the accused Manjeet as one of the robbers, who were
involved in the alleged incident. Further, the prosecution has
failed to prove that the Honda Verna Car of the complainant
Praveen was recovered from the possession of accused Manjeet
as no independent witness was made to join the recovery
proceedings. No videography or photocopy of the alleged
recovery was done by the police.
31. Per contra, Learned Additional PP for the State has
submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt. PW-2/victim has given a trustworthy and
reliable account of the incident. He identified the accused Vishal
before the court and has specifically stated that he had put pistol
on his stomach. The recovery of Samsung mobile phone and
Honda Verna Car have been duly proved by the police officials
of PS Jind Haryana i.e. PW-8 and PW-15. Hence, the accused
persons are liable to be convicted.
COURT FINDINGS
32. I have heard the final arguments addressed on behalf of the
accused persons and the State and perused the entire record
carefully.
SC no.58098/16 FIR No.199/16 State Vs. Manjeet @ Jeeta & Ors. Page 13 of 23
33. The accused persons have been charged for offence of
committing robbery and using a deadly weapon i.e. pistol during
commission of the said robbery, in furtherance of their common
intention.
34. The offence of robbery is defined under Section 390 IPC.
As per the said provision, theft/extortion becomes robbery when
a person during theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry
away the property obtained by theft, causes to a person death or
hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death, instant hurt or
instant wrongful restraint. The said section is reproduced
verbatim as under:-
“Section 390. Robbery- Robbery is either
theft or extortion.
When theft is robbery- Theft is “robbery” if,
in order to the committing of the theft, or in
committing the theft, or in carrying away or
attempting to carry away property obtained
by the theft, the offender, for that end,
voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any
person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or
fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of
instant wrongful restraint.
When extortion is robbery- Extortion is
“robbery” if the offender, at the time of
committing the extortion, is in the presence
of the person put in fear, and commits the
extortion by putting that person in fear of
instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant
wrongful restraint to that person or to some
other person, and, by so putting in fear,
induces the person so put in fear then and
there to deliver up the thing extorted.
Explanation – The offender is said to be
SC no.58098/16 FIR No.199/16 State Vs. Manjeet @ Jeeta & Ors. Page 14 of 23
present if he is sufficiently near to put the
other person in fear of instant death, of
instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.”
35. Section 392 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of
robbery, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may
extend to ten years, and also fine. If the robbery is committed on
the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may
be extended to fourteen years. Section 397 IPC prescribes
punishment for use of deadly weapon or causing grievous hurt to
a person, or attempt to cause death or grievous hurt while
committing robbery. Section 397 IPC relates only to the offender
who actually uses the deadly weapon. Guilt of the accused under
this section can be attributed only to that offender who uses
deadly weapons or causes grievous hurt to anyone during the
course of commission of robbery. To prove the charge under
Section 397 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove that the
accused had used a deadly weapon while committing the robbery.
36. As per Section 34 IPC, when a criminal act is done by
several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all,
each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if
it were done by him alone.
37. Both the accused are also charged separately for offence
under Section 411 IPC, as the stolen mobile phone of the
complainant is alleged to have been recovered from the
possession of accused Vishal while the stolen Honda Verna Car
was recovered from the possession of accused Manjeet. To bring
SC no.58098/16 FIR No.199/16 State Vs. Manjeet @ Jeeta & Ors. Page 15 of 23
home the guilt of the accused under Section 411 IPC, the
prosecution must prove that the property recovered from the
possession of accused persons were dishonestly received or
retained by them knowing or having reason to believe the same
to be stolen property.
38. Accused Manjeet has further been charged for offence
under Section 482 IPC. This section prescribes punishment for
using any false property mark unless he proves that he acted
without intent to defraud.
39. In the present case, the star witness of the prosecution is
PW-2/Gautam, the victim and the sole eye-witness as the
testimony of PW-1 cannot be read in evidence. This witness has
given a detailed account of the incident of robbery. However,
PW-2 failed to identify the accused Manjeet before the court. He
was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State and suggestion was
given to him that the accused Manjeet @ Jeeta was involved in
the alleged incident of robbery but he denied the same. He also
denied having identified accused Manjeet in the police custody
on 20.06.2016.
40. PW-2 duly identified the accused Vishal in his
examination- in-chief stating that he was already known to him.
However, the testimony of this witness has become doubtful due
to the following reasons:-
(1) In his testimony before the court, PW-2 deposed that
SC no.58098/16 FIR No.199/16 State Vs. Manjeet @ Jeeta & Ors. Page 16 of 23
accused Vishal had put a gun on his stomach and
threatened him to hand over cash amount to him. Due to
fear, he handover over the cash amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-
and his mobile phone make Samsung to accused Vishal.
However, in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.,
PW-2 had stated that it was the other unknown person who
had placed a pistol on his abdomen and threatened him
saying, “jo kuchh tumahre pass hai nikal kar de do varna
jaan se maar denge”. He further stated that the said person
forcibly took out the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from his
pocket and forcibly removed him and Praveen from the
car. This is a major contradiction in his testimony which
cannot be overlooked.
(2) PW-2 identified one mobile phone make Samsung
black colour produced from Malkhana during his
testimony as the same mobile, which was robbed from
him. However, as per the seizure memo Ex.PW1/B, the
said mobile phone of make Samsung 4G Duos black
colour was recovered from the accused Vishal in presence
of the complainant Praveen and it is mentioned in the said
seizure memo that the said mobile phone belongs to the
complainant i.e. Praveen. It also bears the signature of
complainant Praveen. Infact, it is the case of the
prosecution that the mobile phone recovered from the
possession of the accused Vishal belonged to complainant
Praveen, and not to Gautam.
(3) PW-2 stated that he had handed over the receipt of
his mobile phone to the IO. However, as per record, only
SC no.58098/16 FIR No.199/16 State Vs. Manjeet @ Jeeta & Ors. Page 17 of 23
one receipt pertaining to mobile phone Samsung Gallaxy
J-7 is on the record and it is having the mobile number of
the complainant Praveen i.e. 9896183195.
(4) PW-2 turned completely hostile in his cross
examination and denied that the accused Vishal was
previously known to him. He was re-examined by Ld. APP
for State however, he stated that he had met with an
accident in 2017 and has been in depression since then,
that is why he tends to forget things. He stated that
whatever he has stated in his cross-examination is the
correct version of his testimony. He denied that the person
Vishal who was known to him was present in the court.
41. It was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
titled as “Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) v. State of
Maharashtra” (2010) 13 SCC 657,
“14. While appreciating the evidence, the court
has to take into consideration whether the
contradictions/omissions had been of such
magnitude that they may materially affect the
trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies,
embellishments or improvements on trivial
matters without effecting the core of the
prosecution case should not be made a ground to
reject the evidence in its entirety. The trial court,
after going through the entire evidence, must form
an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses
and the appellate court in normal course would
not be justified in reviewing the same again
without justifiable reasons. (Vide State v.
Saravanan [(2008) 17 SCC 587 : (2010) 4 SCC
(Cri) 580 : AIR 2009 SC152]
15.Where the omission(s) amount to a
contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the
truthfulness of a witness and the other witness
SC no.58098/16 FIR No.199/16 State Vs. Manjeet @ Jeeta & Ors. Page 18 of 23
also makes material improvements before the
court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it
cannot be safe to rely upon such evidence. (Vide
State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Singh [(2009) 11
SCC 106 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1605])
16.The discrepancies in the evidence of
eyewitnesses, if found to be not minor in nature,
may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting
their evidence. In such circumstances, witnesses
may not inspire confidence and if their evidence is
found to be in conflict and contradiction with
other evidence or with the statement already
recorded, in such a case it cannot be held that the
prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable
doubt. (Vide Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of
U.P. [(2009) 11 SCC 334 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri)
1352] )”
42. The accused Vishal has been charged with offence under
Section 392/34 IPC and Section 411 IPC. However, in view of
the contradictions in the testimony of PW-2 from his earlier
statement and his identifying the mobile phone of the
complainant as his mobile phone, the court is of the considered
opinion that PW-2 is an unreliable witness as his credibility has
become doubtful. Hence, his testimony cannot be relied upon,
even though he identified the accused Vishal in his examination-
in-chief.
43. Further, PW-2 Gautam has neither given any ownership
document of his mobile phone nor given any description of the
same, either in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. or during
his testimony before the court. At no point of time the IMEI
number of Samsung DUOS mobile phone has come up before the
court. NO IMEI number of the mobile phone recovered from the
possession of accused Vishal is mentioned in the seizure memoSC no.58098/16 FIR No.199/16 State Vs. Manjeet @ Jeeta & Ors. Page 19 of 23
Ex.PW1/B. One of the ingredients of Section 411 IPC is that the
property recovered from the possession of the accused should be
stolen property. However, in absence of any bill, invoice or
ownership document of PW-2 pertaining to the recovered mobile
phone vide Ex.PW1/B, it cannot be said that the recovered
mobile phone was stolen/robbed from the possession of PW-2 at
the time of the alleged incident. It was never the case of the
prosecution that the mobile phone of Gautam was recovered from
the possession of accused Vishal. As per the prosecution, it was
the mobile phone of complainant Praveen which was recovered
from the possession of accused Vishal vide seizure memo
Ex.PW1/B.
44. Also, the said phone was produced in an unsealed
condition before the court. Hence, chances of tampering with the
case property cannot be ruled out.
45. Further, the prosecution has also failed to prove that the
recovered mobile phone Ex. P-1 belonged to complainant
Praveen. Firstly, the complainant/PW-1 Praveen could not be
cross-examined as he became untraceable, and hence his
testimony cannot be read in evidence being incomplete. Even
otherwise, he has failed to support the prosecution story and has
failed to identify the mobile phone recovered from the possession
of the accused as his. Secondly, as per the seizure memo of the
phone Ex.PW-1/B, the recovered mobile phone is ‘Samsung 4G
DUOS black colour’ without battery. No IMEI number of the
said mobile phone is mentioned in the said seizure memo.
SC no.58098/16 FIR No.199/16 State Vs. Manjeet @ Jeeta & Ors. Page 20 of 23
However, in the receipt of his mobile phone as furnished by the
complainant Praveen Mark PA, the model of the mobile phone is
mentioned as ‘Samsung Galaxy J-7’. Hence, clearly, the model of
the mobile phone as per the receipt Mark PA is different from the
mobile phone recovered from the possession of the accused
Vishal. Hence, it has not been proved that the mobile phone of
the complainant Praveen was recovered from the possession of
accused Vishal.
46. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that
the accused Vishal had robbed the mobile phone of the
complainant/PW-2 Gautam or of his Verna Car or cash of
Rs.1,00,000/- beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution has further
failed to prove that the mobile phone recovered from the
possession of accused Vishal belonged to PW-2 or the
complainant Praveen. Hence, the accused Vishal is acquitted for
offence under Section 392/34 IPC and Section 411 IPC.
47. As far as accused Manjeet is concerned, he has not been
identified by PW-2 who is the sole eye witness. Hence, he is
entitled to be acquitted for offence under Section 392/397 IPC
r/w Section 34 IPC. However, he has also been charged with
offence under Section 411/482 IPC as he was found in possession
of Verna Car belonging to the complainant Praveen, and a fake
number plate was affixed on the said car.
48. During recording of testimony of PW-4/ASI Phool Kumar,
SC no.58098/16 FIR No.199/16 State Vs. Manjeet @ Jeeta & Ors. Page 21 of 23
accused persons have submitted that they are not disputing the
identity of the car and the number plate, however, they dispute
the factum of recovery of the said car having fake number plate
from their possession.
49. As per the FIR no.160/2016, PS Jind Sadar, Mark PW15/A
the accused Manjeet was apprehended alongwith the Verna Car
having fake number plate of number DL-12CA-0081 by ASI
Bijender Singh. One HC Amit Kumar, EHC Karnail Singh, Ct.
Ramesh Kumar, Ct. Anoop and Ct. Pawan Kumar were also
present with ASI Bijender Singh at that time. However, none of
the said police officials have been examined as prosecution
witness. Though PW-15 ASI Randhir Singh, PS Jind Haryana
deposed that ASI Bijender had apprehended accused Manjeet and
also seized the Verna car, however the seizure memo of the said
car was prepared by ASI Bijender Singh. Since he has not been
examined as a prosecution witness, hence the said seizure memo
has not been proved as per law. Also, there nothing on record to
suggest that any public person was requested to join the
investigation at the time of recovery of Verna Car.
50. Hence, the court is of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has failed to prove that the Verna Car belonging to
the complainant was recovered from the possession of the
accused Manjeet; or that the accused Manjeet had affixed a fake
number plate on the said car. Hence, he is acquitted for offence
under Section 411/482 IPC.
SC no.58098/16 FIR No.199/16 State Vs. Manjeet @ Jeeta & Ors. Page 22 of 23
FINAL DECISION
51. In view of the above discussion, accused Manjeet @ Jeeta
is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 392/34 IPC
and Section 397 IPC and Section 411/482 IPC and the accused
Vishal is acquitted for offence punishable under Section 392/34
IPC and Section 411 IPC.
52. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed
by SAUMYA
SAUMYA CHAUHAN
CHAUHAN Date: 2025.07.25
10:43:13 +0530Announced in the open court (Saumya Chauhan)
today i.e. 19th day July, 2025 ASJ (FTC)-02, West
Tis Hazari Courts, DelhiCertified that this judgment contains 23 pages and each page
bears my signatures. Digitally signed
by SAUMYA
SAUMYA CHAUHAN
CHAUHAN Date:
2025.07.25
10:43:17 +0530
(Saumya Chauhan)
ASJ (FTC)-02, West
Tis Hazari Courts,Delhi
19.07.2025SC no.58098/16 FIR No.199/16 State Vs. Manjeet @ Jeeta & Ors. Page 23 of 23
[ad_1]
Source link